|
how are you.loving up at stopping subs
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 18:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 06:11 |
|
|
Tiler Kiwi posted:how are you.loving up at stopping subs He is playing as Japan
|
|
#
?
Jun 20, 2016 18:28
|
|
|
Don't worry, the Ryujo's incredible luck will probably hold forever. It's only dodged/had a torpedo fail to go off against it's side 5 times.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 00:49
|
|
|
Has anyone put together a wiki for this LP, like for the last campaign? Then again, that wiki looks like it was abandoned about halfway through..
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 02:27
|
|
|
You'd think given the Japanese belief that subs should target warships over shipping that they'd try and protect their own warships from enemy subs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 05:24
|
|
|
goatface posted:16,000 ft is taking the piss a bit, especially with those bombers. Blenheims don't carry more than two 500lb bombs each. The estimated heights are often off wildly. The reliable ones are at the end of the combat report so the actual height was probably more like 10k, still a stretch but not totally off. It's one of the quirks of reading the combat reports. Others include: air to air combat casualties in the report are usually almost exactly half the real figure, bombardments or bombing of airfields count each individual report of damaged planes so you often get numbers a lot higher than the actual number of planes present. Umm i'm sure there are others but nothing springs to mind, it's just one of those things you internalise after playing the game for a while and never really think about. Saros fucked around with this message at 13:55 on Jun 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 13:49
|
|
|
What about the 20,000 troops the game says I killed in an unescorted convoy 3 hexes away from my fleet base?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 14:23
|
|
|
Oh yeah troop drownings are usually about 3x the actual figure.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 14:27
|
|
|
SHHHH! your destroying the mystery!
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 15:05
|
|
|
   Sigh, six to one odds and we come out even.   Our ships flee south.  The extra troops are ashore however, and should prove decisive.   Oh look, our base points jump back up for no reason. Actually, a supply ship arrived in Singapore, so that may make 400 points of difference.  The 500lb bomb, scourge of the Japanese navy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 17:52
|
|
|
I am beginning to think the Zero's capabilities are strongly overstated.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:I am beginning to think the Zero's capabilities are strongly overstated. I think somebody mentioned that this game's air combat model strongly favors the dive attack (it gives excessive bonuses for starting at higher altitude than the other guy)--that's the form of combat that US planes excel at. So I'm not surprised. The more I see Grey play these kinds of hyper-detailed grog wargames, the more I question where the devil the devs justified calling these games "realistic".
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:I am beginning to think the Zero's capabilities are strongly overstated. Zero Maneuver rating: 10 above 32K, 33 below 15K Hurricane Maneuver rating: 14 above 32K, 24 below 15K
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 18:05
|
|
|
Davin Valkri posted:I think somebody mentioned that this game's air combat model strongly favors the dive attack (it gives excessive bonuses for starting at higher altitude than the other guy)--that's the form of combat that US planes excel at. So I'm not surprised. Well I mean that was how you killed the drat things, but we're seeing Zeroes lose to Hurricanes, not Wildcats or Hellcats.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 18:07
|
|
|
Don't fight hurricanes at altitude.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
uPen posted:Zero Maneuver rating: 10 above 32K, 33 below 15K So what you're saying is that the Zero should fly at 15k in spite of the dice advantage.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 18:33
|
|
|
Jesus, what were they even doing up there. That's over 10 kilometers up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 18:34
|
|
|
Labouring to breathe and getting cold, mostly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 18:41
|
|
|
It builds character, goddamnit!
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 18:43
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:Well I mean that was how you killed the drat things, but we're seeing Zeroes lose to Hurricanes, not Wildcats or Hellcats. I mean, it's not like the Zero was a super weapon, and Hurricanes were good work horses of the RAF. When it comes down to it, the Zeros we are seeing now are just glorified Oscars - and the first thing Japanese players tend to do is make sure to retire the Oscar ASAP. steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 18:48 on Jun 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 18:44
|
|
|
That's because Zeros weren't that good. At best, the Zero was roughly comparable to most early war fighters, and the only thing that made it fearsome was the 9 years of combat experience that the IJAA and IJNA's had piled up beating the poo poo out of Soviet/Chinese pilots. Once Japanese pilots started dying on mass and Allied fighter development caught up with and then quickly surpassed the Zero, the obvious and glaring weaknesses of the Zero were exposed - things like being totally unarmed, non-sealing fuel tanks, that the engine was really pretty modest for a fighter, and my personal favorite - no bullet proof glass in the cockpit. Of course, that's reality. This is War in Pacific, where fighters dogfight at 30,000 feet and mid-level bombers make their best hits at 500 feet.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
Dreamsicle posted:So what you're saying is that the Zero should fly at 15k in spite of the dice advantage. You need to mix and match your aircraft as best as possible when planning ops in WitP I find. Sweep high while bombing low, or vice versa. A 24k feet altitude advantage means nothing if the bombers are coming in 800 feet off the ground, and you can't just dive down all the way unless you want to become the inventor of lawn darts. Really expensive lawn darts. As for the Zero itself, its been done to death. It was maneuverable, but suffered from poor top speed; it had cannons, but low ammunition. It certainly wasn't a garbage aircraft, but the cumulative effects of US pilots gaining experience, IJ pilots losing experienced pilots (+ poor training), and the capture of the Akutan Zero, which itself lead to better tactics against the Zero, all played vital parts in minimizing the effect the Zero could have on the battlefield. A White Guy posted:That's because Zeros weren't that good. At best, the Zero was roughly comparable to most early war fighters, and the only thing that made it fearsome was the 9 years of combat experience that the IJAA and IJNA's had piled up beating the poo poo out of Soviet/Chinese pilots. Once Japanese pilots started dying on mass and Allied fighter development caught up with and then quickly surpassed the Zero, the obvious and glaring weaknesses of the Zero were exposed - things like being totally unarmed, non-sealing fuel tanks, that the engine was really pretty modest for a fighter, and my personal favorite - no bullet proof glass in the cockpit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 19:28
|
|
|
I know the Zero was beaten and wasn't actually a superweapon, but I recall it doing pretty well early before it got pissed all over by the allies.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
Davin Valkri posted:The more I see Grey play these kinds of hyper-detailed grog wargames, the more I question where the devil the devs justified calling these games "realistic". Yeah the grognard games seem to be programmed using a very particular (and dumb) approach. That approach is: divide a bunch of game mechanics up between several programmers; each programmer researches facts on <thing>, each programmer implements that fact in the game in accordance to their whim, merge all the code as you go, and then test things in-game for maybe one month, but certainly never go to the time and effort of testing the game start to finish since that'd take ages. The result is that all those <things> being implemented aren't well-integrated, don't follow a consistent level of detail, and there's not much effort put into making sure that the end result is an actually fun game to play. E.g., let's track every single squad of men in the Pacific theater individually... but let's just combine all their capabilities and vagaries into a single numerical value of "assault" and then just compare them to resolve every fight. We'll account for leadership and terrain advantages just by modifying that base number, irrespective of who is fighting. Let's also abstract all forms of defensive advantage - terrain, fortification, etc - into an integer between 1 and 5. We know exactly to the mm what every gun on every ship is, its range, penetrating power, we have a complex model for damage to ships including differentiating between floatation, systems, and fire damage, plus ongoing damage from uncontrolled fires, and we'll recognize and implement differences in fire control doctrine between early and late-war ships and between the two different sides... that's someone implementing "realism" without consideration of gameplay. But at the same time let's not bother to give ship captains the ability to act on their own prerogative; if their mission is to use their planes to attack a port, then gently caress it, incoming planes attacking the ship will just be ignored, even to the point of eating torpedoes and sinking. It goes on and on. The issue is that you can tell the developers didn't start with a clear, well-defined definition of scale and scope for each aspect of the game. It feels a lot more ad-hoc. All supply in the game is abstracted to "supplies" but you have to manually control which specific engines are being built in which factories in japan in order to get them put into the specific models of airplanes you want to construct. You can control the orders for every ship in the combat theater, but there's no direct way to tell ships to do the most important thing ships should always be doing: protect themselves from all types of possible attack. You have to use political points to assign individual generals leadership positions based on their individual leadership scores (and there's several), but leaders don't actually do anything such as decide on their own to reorganize their troops, tell an army to not try to attack across a river when there's a way around it, or tell the player that their troops are so exhausted that the attack command you gave them is 100% certain to fail and result in slaughter. Your aircraft carrier captain doesn't order his own planes to take off and defend the ship from attack by enemy fighters, no matter how high his leadership or organization scores. Maybe it irks me more because I work in software, have worked on a lot of different development teams both big and small, and so I'm familiar with very standard development processes that there's no reason a game dev team couldn't easily implement which would make games like this so much better. War in the Pacific is clearly an intriguing game and it's evident an enormous amount of work has gone into it, but it's doomed to obscurity as a grognard game because the people who made it clearly have no idea how to make good software.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:I know the Zero was beaten and wasn't actually a superweapon, but I recall it doing pretty well early before it got pissed all over by the allies. The Zero was a fine plane until the Hellcat and the Corsair showed up. Both outgunned the Zero and had much bigger engines and better speed. It also didn't help that the Zero would be blown apart like a kid's kite by the Hellcat's cannons.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 19:38
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:I know the Zero was beaten and wasn't actually a superweapon, but I recall it doing pretty well early before it got pissed all over by the allies. That's because the Kido Butai's aviators were some of the best pilots in the world in late 1941/early 1942. Once they died in the Solomons in the summer/fall of 1942, the effectiveness of the Japanese naval air dropped big time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:The result is that all those <things> being implemented aren't well-integrated, don't follow a consistent level of detail, and there's not much effort put into making sure that the end result is an actually fun game to play. E.g., let's track every single squad of men in the Pacific theater individually... but let's just combine all their capabilities and vagaries into a single numerical value of "assault" and then just compare them to resolve every fight. We'll account for leadership and terrain advantages just by modifying that base number, irrespective of who is fighting. Let's also abstract all forms of defensive advantage - terrain, fortification, etc - into an integer between 1 and 5. You have a point about assault value but that's not actually how combat works. Units use their devices to 'shoot' at each other to do damage and its effectiveness is reduced/increased (by different amounts) by all the factors you mentioned. The Assault value mentioned in the report is calculated after all the fighting is done and is essentially a representation of the flow of the battle (who wins/takes fort lines etc) and has no effect on casualties at all. The ground combat model is much more nuanced than just who gets the biggest Assault value but it does suffer a bit as its designed for island hopping combat not continental wars. You'll see things like Allied tank units attacking IJA infantry and being badly outnumbered and getting a terrible Assault value score but still inflicting a disproportionate number of casualties because the IJA infantry simply don't have a decent way to deal with a medium tank.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
If I recall correctly, Hurricanes and Spitfires got wrecked in the Pacific mainly because the the British ignored advice in regards to aerial tactics, and mostly used the same tactics that they used on the western front - i.e. dogfighting worked fine with 109s, so they went dogfighting with Zeroes too. Except that early war the Zero was possibly the best dogfighter around, and US tactics had evolved to take advantage of their superior speed with planes like the P-38 to do sweeps, rather than get bogged down in a furball where they'd get outmaneuvered.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
Spitfires had no endurance. They were short range interceptors with gently caress all ammo designed to fight battles over their own airfields. The Pacific was entirely the wrong place for them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 20:44
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:I am beginning to think the Zero's capabilities are strongly overstated. Hurricane IIB trop had twelve 7.7mm Brownings which would make a bunch of pretty sparks bouncing off a well-armored plane but are pretty much the ideal loadout against an unarmored zero. I wonder if the IIC (with 4 20mm hispanos) would actually do worse in the combat model vs early zeros.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 22:15
|
|
|
Saros posted:You have a point about assault value but that's not actually how combat works. Units use their devices to 'shoot' at each other to do damage and its effectiveness is reduced/increased (by different amounts) by all the factors you mentioned. The Assault value mentioned in the report is calculated after all the fighting is done and is essentially a representation of the flow of the battle (who wins/takes fort lines etc) and has no effect on casualties at all. The ground combat model is much more nuanced than just who gets the biggest Assault value but it does suffer a bit as its designed for island hopping combat not continental wars. Interesting. This actually leads to another observation which is how extremely obtuse the game is about actually giving the player this information in a way that's useful to them. But yeah I don't actually have the game so I probably didn't pick the right examples.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
goatface posted:Spitfires had no endurance. They were short range interceptors with gently caress all ammo designed to fight battles over their own airfields. The Pacific was entirely the wrong place for them. And then Britain decided to put them on aircraft carriers! 
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 22:27
|
|
|
dear loving lord
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 02:47
|
|
|
The formatting is pretty bad, I agree.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 03:13
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Interesting. This actually leads to another observation which is how extremely obtuse the game is about actually giving the player this information in a way that's useful to them. But yeah I don't actually have the game so I probably didn't pick the right examples. The best thing is that even if you use an external tracker to calculate the power of units, there is a disorganized mess of variables that seemingly duplicate and override each other, , and numerous devices that exist in multiple versions, only some of which appear in the game,because instead of cleaning up the code the developers of the Admiral's Edition just bolted their new objects and databases on top of the existing structures made by the original devs, with no regard for what mess it would create.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 09:37
|
|
|
So is this the Dwarf Fortress of war games?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 11:56
|
|
|
Just needs someone to do a full memory analysis and release a dozen plugins and it's good to go?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 14:11
|
|
|
markus_cz posted:So is this the Dwarf Fortress of war games? Well Dwarf Fortress didn't know if they had a market for their game so they released it for free and we're pleased that donations were enough to support full-time development. WITP knew exactly what their market was and just how many pennies they could extract from those people.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 16:45
|
|
|
  Another cruiser is patrolling.  We destroy one of the defenders, the end is nigh.  A very quiet day. I spend a lot of time moving ships around for industry purposes.  Still angry.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2016 17:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 06:11 |
|
|
   Clunk!  Then we get this.  What the hell are these guys doing here?  The captain of the Ushio comes back in and surprises the allied task force – Not that it does him any good.  Hey! The CAP does something.  Onward to the capital!   This force continues to be hounded as they retreat.  So, are those cruisers going to hang around, and what do I have to meet them? The answer is not much beyond the Yamato.  This is our only loss today.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2016 18:06
|
|